Activities in the European Union during 2023

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report Activities in the European Union during 2023. With reference to the ongoing cooperation between the Sweden Democrats and the government parties, and that the committee approves one of our motion proposals, large parts of our policy have gained traction in the committee's positions. Therefore, we choose to have no reservations in the report, and I would therefore like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

It is a comprehensive report that we are debating today, and it covers a long range of areas. I will therefore focus on the EU framework for counter-terrorism legislation. Later in the debate, my colleague Markus Wiechel will also deliver a speech.

Mr. Speaker! The Russian paramilitary group Wagner has for a long time operated on Russia's behalf all over the world. Often, the group has been deployed in conflict zones in Africa, and it has been used to support Russian foreign policy goals. This can involve supporting various regimes with which Russia has good relations, or using brutal violence against the opposition and other Russian targets. We have also seen how the group has participated in, among other things, the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

There is no doubt that the Wagner Group has committed several crimes against international law in the conflicts it has been involved in. In the conflicts where the Wagner Group has been deployed, it is more common than an exception that the group is linked to various crimes against international law. This applies in particular in Ukraine.

In Mali, where Sweden previously had a larger military presence, the group has been hired by the authoritarian regime for various missions. This has been a major contributing cause to the negative development we have seen in the country, which has led to many international actors withdrawing from there.

During the previous parliamentary session when the committee considered the activities in the EU during 2022, the committee proposed a motion that the government within the EU should actively work to create unity for a terror listing of the Wagner Group. The Riksdag then decided in accordance with the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! There is no doubt that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has played a direct role in serious violations of human rights. We see recurring examples of murder, torture, and oppression. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard scorns all means when it exercises its fanaticism. Bestial violence can be directed against anyone, as long as it is deemed to serve its cause.

Even though the IRGC is part of Iran's official military, they play a central role in the country's use of terrorism as a tool for the Iranian state. They plan, organize, and carry out acts of terrorism all over the world. At the same time, they have created, supported, and directed other terrorist groups throughout the world and assisted them militarily, economically, and politically.

Mr. Speaker! The definition of terrorism is clear. A terrorist organization uses acts of violence that are politically motivated and aimed at influencing society without regard for whether innocent people are affected. There is therefore no doubt that the IRGC engages in terrorism. For that reason, it is also no coincidence that other countries already today designate the organization as a terrorist organization. What is strange in this context is rather that Sweden and the EU do not, even when Swedish and European citizens are also affected by the acts.

Mr. Speaker! During 2023, a united Foreign Affairs Committee and a united Riksdag stood behind proposals from the Sverigedemokraterna that the Swedish government should push for a terror listing of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard. In the work that has been done specifically on this issue, it has become clear that the legal framework for carrying out such a terror listing differs between the EU and other countries. For example, the USA has a more modern and more flexible system. Now, it is required that a judicial instance or equivalent national authority, such as a court or prosecutor, makes a decision to initiate a preliminary investigation or to bring an indictment against a group or organization, or that there is a conviction for a terrorist act, for the IRGC to be able to be classified as a terrorist group. There are therefore significant difficulties in making political decisions on terror listing today.

The EU's current framework for terrorist listing was established 23 years ago, following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in the USA. Unfortunately, this framework has proven to be ineffective and can hinder, complicate, and delay the process of listing certain groups as terrorist organizations. Against this background, there are strong reasons to work as soon as possible for a review and subsequently an update of the EU's regulatory framework for terrorist listing.

Mr. Speaker! It is therefore positive that there is now a majority in the committee for a notice to take measures so that the EU shall initiate a review of the legal conditions for applying sanctions against terrorism and thereby accede to the Sweden Democrats' motion.

The review should result in a modernization of the legal basis for terror listing so that today's threat pictures can be captured and become applicable in the work against state-supported groups that commit acts of terrorism, for example the Wagner Group and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. In connection with this, the government should also work to ensure that the EU terror-lists the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I listened carefully to the member's speech. In this, we agree that we need to update and obtain an analysis at the EU level on how we can move forward so that we can update the basis for the terrorism sanctions. But the member also said that there is now a majority for this, but there was already one last year.

We were a number of parties that already then raised the issue and saw that we were not making progress. I also remember that the member who participated for the Sverigedemokraterna in that debate said that it meant closing open doors to direct a motion to the government. But that is precisely what is now happening, which we welcome.

What is the difference regarding the position of the Sweden Democrats this year?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to MP Linnéa Wickman for the question!

We have, as is known, already issued a notification to the government regarding the inclusion of both the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and the Wagner Group on the terror list. Now, about a year has passed since then, and sufficient success has not been achieved.

We see that we need to push further to move forward in the issue and get these terror groups listed as terrorist groups.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I share the view that it needs to be emphasized in this matter.

A year ago, Sweden held the presidency in the EU. We could have gathered a majority in the Swedish Riksdag on this issue already then, not least when it comes to the terror listing of the IRGC. But we did not succeed in achieving that during the Swedish presidency, and we have nevertheless lost a great deal of time.

My question, the further question, to the member is whether the Sweden Democrats regret that one did not already a year ago submit a notice to the government on this issue. It is a fact that the IRGC and not least the Wagner Group commit acts of terrorism and that the international community and the EU today are unable to impose sanctions against these groups to a sufficiently high degree, so I wonder, of course, if one regrets that we have now lost further time in this work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that both the Wagner Group and the IRGC should have been listed as terrorist organizations a long time ago.

As the member knows, the Sweden Democrats have a cooperation with the government, and I do not doubt that the government has done its utmost to push for the terror listing of both the Wagner Group and the IRGC within the EU. But we see that with the EU's current framework, it is extremely difficult to terror-list.

Therefore, it is pleasing that our two parties have been able to agree on a majority in the committee's position on this issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! The EU is Sweden's most important foreign policy arena. This becomes clear in today's debate, which addresses the activities of the European Union during 2023.

I will highlight the areas that we Social Democrats consider particularly important based on the reservations we have in the report. It is a very extensive report, including a communication from the government.

We live in a time that reminds us that the EU was formed as a peace project in the ruins after two world wars. Countries that were sworn enemies became good neighbors, and in their pursuit of peace, freedom, and democracy, they were also bound together by trade and cooperation. It laid the foundation for a historically long period of peace.

But now war is raging again on our continent. Just a hundred miles from this parliament house, Ukraine is fighting not only for its own freedom and the right to determine its future, but also for Sweden's security and our way of life.

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has overturned the European security order and is a flagrant violation of international law. But Russia underestimated Ukraine's will to defend itself and the Western world's determination in its support for Ukraine. Never, Mr. Speaker, has the EU had such strong sanctions in place as against Russia.

The political consensus during the Swedish presidency of the EU in 2023 regarding prioritizing support for Ukraine was important. Maintaining the momentum in implementing further sanction packages against Russia and stopping the circumvention of current sanctions was the focus for the EU during 2023. These sanction packages are crucial for shrinking Putin's war chest.

A clear example of how the circumvention takes place is the Russian shadow fleet in the Baltic Sea with ships in poor condition, which enables Russia to bypass the sanctions against the country's oil exports. At the same time, these ships pose a major environmental risk to the Baltic Sea, as an oil spill would have catastrophic environmental consequences. Their presence can also enable espionage against Sweden.

We Social Democrats believe that the shadow fleet must be banned and subjected to sanctions.

Mr. Speaker! It has also been crucial during 2023 to continue the economic, humanitarian, and military support to Ukraine and to ensure that the proceeds from the frozen Russian central bank assets go to Ukraine and can be used to purchase ammunition and weapons for Ukraine's defense. It is truly an urgent issue where Sweden needs to continue to press.

We Social Democrats believe that we should be able to go further than we have managed so far at the EU level and enable an attempt to use the frozen Russian central bank assets as collateral for loans that go towards supporting Ukraine. In that way, a large sum of money can be released, and we use Putin's money to support Ukraine. It would do vital good in pushing Russia back on the battlefield.

It is also crucial in this time to strengthen the collective European defense capability and the EU's ability to take responsibility for the union's own security and that of its surrounding area.

Mr. Speaker! When we debated the activities in the European Union 2022 last year, the Riksdag issued a notice to the government to work towards a terror listing of the Russian Wagner Group. Given how the Wagner Group's leadership and organization have changed since then, we argue that the government must review and assess the need for a terror listing of other Russian military companies as well.

The business model of these companies is to undermine human rights and commit war crimes. Neocolonial arrangements are established with host countries where the companies acquire the right to exploit natural resources to finance their operations. This is activity that includes international crime such as trafficking, smuggling of military materiel, and money laundering.

The ruthlessness of the military companies is to be equated with terrorism. They also constitute a clear example that the Russian regime's imperialist ambitions extend far beyond Ukraine's borders.

Mr. Speaker! These companies are not alone in carrying out state-sponsored terrorism. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard, IRGC, is the Iranian regime's armed branch. They carry out terror and repression both against their own population in Iran as well as against people outside the country and imprison foreign citizens on false grounds.

It was therefore an important decision that the Riksdag took just over a year ago regarding a notification, also concerning the government's efforts to work towards a terror listing of the IRGC in the EU.

But today we must conclude that the government has not succeeded. The IRGC has not been placed on the EU's terror list, and so far the message from the government has been that the requirements for a terror listing to be possible are not met. Even though opinions differ among lawyers as to whether there is a sustainable legal basis or not, Foreign Minister Billström stated as recently as a week ago in an interpellation debate that there is still a lack of support in EU circles for a terror listing.

Already a year ago, we were a number of parties who argued that the legal basis for terror listings must be reviewed in the EU, and a mandate was given to carry out a review in the EU for the purpose of developing a model that gives the EU the ability to use a sanctions regime for terrorism, while maintaining requirements for legal certainty, also against, for example, the Wagner Group and the IRGC.

Now that almost a year has passed, we can once again state that the current framework is insufficient and that it is evident that the EU, with the current regulatory framework, is unable to introduce sanctions against terrorism when the terrorism comes directly from states. We must, of course, do something about this to improve the resistance in a time when authoritarian regimes are advancing their positions.

We therefore welcome that the Riksdag now, at least it looks like, will issue a motion to the government that it shall work to have the EU update these rules so that it becomes easier to blacklist organizations that carry out state-sponsored terrorism and, again, that the government in connection with this shall also work to have the EU blacklist the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Mr. Speaker! The political struggle in the world increasingly appears as the choice between freedom and oppression, between cohesion and division. It becomes particularly clear when we look back at the work within the EU during 2023 and when we look forward that the EU's expansion is the clearest tool that the EU has to guard the union's fundamental values and secure democracy, the rule of law principles, and reforms in the EU's candidate countries. It is seen as necessary in this regard to welcome more member states into the EU, provided that they undergo the performance-based and laborious process that the path to membership entails.

In the foreseeable future, these issues will need to be devoted much effort, and that has also been the case during 2023. Not least, Ukraine shows that despite a burning war, it is possible to have a high pace of reform to achieve membership, if the political will is there.

An EU with more member states will also require internal reforms. We want to guard the Swedish budget-restrictive line. We want to see that redistribution is prioritized over an expanded budget and that reforms for decision-making can take place in the foreign policy area. At the same time, better tools are needed so that existing member states that dismantle their democracy and depart from the values on which the union rests can ultimately be excluded from the EU. It is a matter of us needing to democratically secure the EU in the time we live in.

Mr. Speaker! When we in the Swedish OSCE delegation visited the EU's newest candidate country, Georgia, which received its candidate status in December 2023, there was no doubt that there was overwhelming support among the people and civil society for EU membership. In recent days, we have been able to see how hundreds of thousands of Georgians have demonstrated precisely for this and against the Russian agent law that the country's leadership now appears to be pushing through, while peaceful protests have been violently suppressed.

When we met a number of civil society organizations that work for women's rights, fight corruption, and stand up for the rights of minorities, not least hbtqi persons, it was crystal clear that the reforms that EU membership requires are also the obvious path towards strengthened democracy in the country.

We also visited the EU's civilian monitoring mission EUMM at the contact line between the Georgian breakaway region of South Ossetia and Georgia. There, we could see how Russian military bases have been built up on Georgian territory like a string of pearls since the war in 2008.

In Georgia, people know what lack of freedom means, and that is why it is easy to understand the people's strong will to take steps towards the EU. When we now see how the country's leadership takes decisions that go completely against the path to EU membership by pushing through a bill copied from Russia, which means that organizations and media outlets that receive economic grants from abroad are branded as foreign agents, it clearly shows what the alternative to EU membership is for Georgia and many other candidate countries. In Russia, this agent law has effectively crippled free media and political opposition, and it is difficult to see that the Russian law would not have the same consequences in Georgia.

Ultimately, this shows once again that the struggle in our time stands between freedom and oppression, where the EU is and must be a safe democratic harbor. What is happening in Georgia is also a clear example of the serious geopolitical situation that characterizes our global environment and the EU work, where Russia, regardless of where one engages politically or militarily, makes the world less free and more authoritarian.

Mr. Speaker! In less than a month, there is an election to the European Parliament, and it is an election where we see how far-right, right-wing populists and pro-Russian forces are trying to advance their positions. In Sweden, we can even see how the Sweden Democrats have their own troll factory, which mass-produces and spreads disinformation about political opponents, their own coalition partners, and Sweden. This threatens our democracy from within, and with what we also see happening around Europe, the increased fragmentation, even the support for Ukraine is at risk in the long term.

We Social Democrats want to see a Europe with stronger cohesion and strength, because it is crucial to stand up for the principles of security, democracy, and the rule of law. I hope that when we have this debate next year, we can state that we also see this in the EU, with a new parliament, a new EU Commission, and a new mandate period that has begun.

In conclusion, we Social Democrats, of course, stand behind the specific statements that the Social Democrats have submitted in both the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Taxation, as well as our reservations in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 7 under point 3. In all other respects, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Mr. Speaker! It may seem a bit counterintuitive that we are debating a report, Activities in the European Union during 2023, which is a look back, when we are also going to handle motions that are forward-looking, but regardless of this, it is what we are doing today.

I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs Committee's secretariat for their good work with the report and also the government for this review of the fiscal year. As appears from the communication, the government has had a great commitment and invested time and effort to keep the Riksdag continuously informed. We are extra grateful for that.

Mr. Speaker! During the first half of 2023, Sweden held the presidency of the Council of the European Union. This should be mentioned in particular, as the good work done then has placed Sweden in a good position for future successful work.

During that half-year, work was done to make the EU greener, freer and safer with priority on security, competitiveness, energy and the green transition, as well as always and primarily democratic values and the rule of law principle. The Fit for 55 climate package was agreed upon, and significant migration agreements were entered into.

Mr. Speaker! Europe is in an extremely tense situation and in a security-politically mined time, with a neighboring country, Russia, trying to take [it] by force. The whole of 2023 was characterized by Russia's illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Three sanction packages were launched to limit Russia's revenues and war capabilities. These have concerned, among other things, import bans for petroleum products, diamonds, LPG and certain metal products, preventing Russia from entering the European energy market, and the introduction of a No Russia Clause to prohibit further export to Russia, and so on.

We must also mention here the establishment of an international justice center in The Hague to prosecute crimes of aggression against Ukraine and the launch of the work to be able to use the frozen Russian assets and the returns thereof for the reconstruction of Ukraine. All of this is positive for Ukraine.

The EU also contributed to Ukraine's defense capability by increasing financial support within the European Peace Facility and agreed to send 1 million units of artillery ammunition to Ukraine during the spring of 2024.

Sweden succeeded during its presidency in uniting the EU member states and maintaining that unity to continue delivering support to Ukraine, politically, humanitarily and militarily. That unity, Mr. Speaker, is our European gold. That unity will continue to help Ukraine win peace, until Russia loses the war. All of Ukraine shall live in peace, democracy and freedom.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a full-scale political failure for Putin's Russia. Putin believed it would take three days to take Ukraine; Ukraine's resistance is now in its third year.

Putin thought that the war would divide Europe; Europe has never been more united than now. Putin thought that Nato would be weakened by the war; Nato has never been stronger than now.

Europe stands as a proud and strong community of values against the brutally aggressive Russia. We welcome Ukraine as a member state in the EU. We welcome Ukraine as a member of Nato.

Mr. Speaker! Accession negotiations have been initiated with Ukraine and also Moldova. Georgia is a candidate country, and Bosnia and Herzegovina will initiate accession negotiations. The expansion is a sign of health.

The will of the countries that want to join to introduce the laws, rules, and reforms that are required is admirable. That Ukraine manages to implement all these required reforms in the midst of a burning war demonstrates the incredibly strong resilience that the people in Ukraine have, and it also demonstrates the incredibly great longing and determination that the people of Ukraine have to continue living in freedom and European community.

The intensity with which the Georgian people are demonstrating against the so-called Russian agent law shows with all clarity that our Georgian sisters and brothers also belong in the free West. But it also shows how delicate the balancing act is for the EU, for how can one be able to set tough requirements on future member states without risking that the country's governments are pushed into Russia's embrace?

The answer to this is more international and Western presence. Therefore, it was very welcome that Sweden's Minister for Development Cooperation, Johan Forssell, visited Georgia last week. To simultaneously announce that our Swedish government supports Georgian civil society organizations with additional funds was an important signal in this context.

Another struggle for values is taking place in Belarus, between the people and the pro-Russian government. We stand wholeheartedly behind the Belarusian people's struggle for freedom.

These countries' competition for valuation shows the enormous attractive power within the European Union. We shall continue to gather that power. We shall make the EU stronger, greener, freer and safer.

While the previous government was dangerously passive when it came to standing up for Swedish forestry, we are, on the contrary, very active. A few years ago, a dozen EU countries wrote a joint letter to protect active forestry. At that time, the red-green government abstained from signing. Now, on the contrary, we are cooperating closely with like-minded countries.

It also concerns questions of economic competitiveness. The Nordic prime ministers will soon adopt a joint declaration in May on precisely competitiveness. Sweden and the Nordic countries shall be an engine in the work to strengthen the European economy. We shall make the EU stronger, greener, freer and safer.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! In less than a month, on June 9, there is an election to the European Parliament. The election will determine much of the direction for Europe moving forward. I believe that red-green voters should choose Jonas Sjöstedt, who is the Left Party's top candidate, with extensive political experience from both the EU and from Sweden's Riksdag.

But something that many miss is that the EU election is just as crucial for Sweden's views and positions in the EU. That is why it is good that EU Minister Jessika Roswall is participating in today's debate, because the government is responsible for the policy that is pursued in the EU's Council of Ministers. Today we are addressing the government's communication regarding the policy pursued during the past year.

Mr. Speaker! We see now how the war in Gaza has raged for more than seven months. A few weeks ago, the ceasefire seemed to be near, but at the last second, Israel said no to an agreement on a ceasefire. Instead, Israel has now with full force launched a ground offensive in the last city, Rafah - a Rafah where many millions have fled the fighting to seek shelter. The UN body OCHA now reports that during the last week, 20 percent of the people in Rafah fled. It is a couple of hundred thousand people who are now fleeing again. For some, it is the eighth time they have fled during the war's seven months.

Many politicians in the West, such as Biden and Billström, have said that the invasion of Rafah is a red line for them. Now that it is happening, we see no signs that this red line is being enforced and that the pressure on Israel is increasing.

Israel's attack on Gaza has, at the time of writing, killed over 35,000 people and displaced millions. Israel's bombings have turned Gaza into ruins, and through the blockade, food, water, electricity, and medicines are being prevented from reaching those who need them. WHO warns that children are dying of starvation while emergency aid is being stopped on the way. The situation in Gaza is a nightmare.

Vänsterpartiet is clear in connection with this EU communication. We are the only party that has written a so-called follow-up motion. We demand that Sweden and the EU increase the pressure on Israel to achieve peace. Of course, we shall also increase the pressure on Hamas, but the difference is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and does not have any embassy in Sweden.

We want the EU to terminate its trade agreement with Israel and introduce a ban on trade with weapons with Israel. We want the EU to work towards an end to Israel's occupation of Palestine.

Sweden needs to push for the EU to take a stand for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. That the Swedish government does not demand this today is embarrassing. A permanent ceasefire would be a matter of course - a temporary and short ceasefire can never save the people of Gaza.

Israel's occupation of Palestine has created one of the world's most protracted conflicts. Already through the process that led to the state of Israel being proclaimed in 1948, the groundwork for today's conflict was created. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homes. It is called nakba, and the day of remembrance for nakba falls today, May 15. Then followed the six-day war in 1967, and Israel then occupied and blocked the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem in violation of international law.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is not a conflict between equal parties. Israel is one of the world's largest militaries, whose military apparatus is supported by the USA. The country has a greater responsibility under international law in its capacity as an occupying power. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the framework of international law, including the prohibition of attacks against civilians, applies to all parties, including Hamas.

Violence has also increased in the West Bank. In the shadow of the attacks against Gaza, a large number of Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military and aggressive settlers. Others have been driven away from their lands and homes. Many villages have been forced to be emptied. The violence is directly sanctioned by the Israeli government. Among other things, weapons have been distributed to settlers in the West Bank by the right-wing extremist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, weapons where many times there are Swedish sights from the Swedish company Aimpoint.

The number of illegal settlements on occupied land is growing, and the displacement is increasing. New Israeli roads are being built in the West Bank. The construction of the wall that has long been condemned by the UN continues. Israeli soldiers and settlers have repeatedly destroyed facilities in the West Bank that have been financed with Swedish aid money. Added to this are all the aid projects that have been destroyed in Gaza during the ongoing attacks.

The settlements constitute a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are considered a war crime by the International Criminal Court, ICC. As long as Israel refuses to respect the Palestinians' fundamental human rights, it will not be possible to achieve peace.

The sanctions that the EU has adopted against extremist settlers within the framework of the sanctions against serious violations of and crimes against human rights are certainly welcome but far from sufficient to constitute a powerful statement against the Israeli settlement policy. The government should therefore take the initiative for Sweden to target additional sanctions against Israeli settlers and push for them to be introduced in the EU.

Israel's occupation of Palestine would not have been possible if the EU had not had such a favorable trade agreement with Israel and without the USA's military aid to Israel. The European Union has year after year directed criticism at Israel without changing the situation for the Palestinians. Israel has consistently been able to ignore that criticism from the EU without it having any consequences.

The EU must put weight behind its message. The cooperation between the EU and Israel is extensive. The association agreement is conditioned on respect for human rights. The association agreement that exists with Israel contributes large trade benefits to the Israeli business sector and large economic advantages. In this way, the EU contributes to strengthening the economic base of the occupation policy.

Sweden should oppose the EU deepening its cooperation with Israel in any area, and the current association agreement should be suspended as long as Israel does not dismantle settlements and checkpoints in occupied territory, lift the blockade of Gaza, and cease the construction of the wall in the West Bank.

Choking off the supply of weapons is an effective tool to put pressure on all parties. Today, no arms exports occur from the EU to the Palestinian parties, but several EU members export weapons to Israel. All arms exports from EU members to Israel must cease. Sweden should take the initiative for the EU to introduce an arms embargo against Israel.

Committed war crimes must be investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable in the International Court of Justice, ICJ, and the International Criminal Court, ICC. Sweden should push for the EU to take measures to facilitate accountability for the committed war crimes. It is simply time to arrest Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

You, the citizen listening to this debate, may be wondering how you should vote in the EU election. I would cast my vote for Vänsterpartiet. Vänsterpartiet is the only party that has consistently, ever since last autumn, voted for a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities in Gaza. We stand up for international law. We stand up for peace and freedom for all peoples and demand that the Swedish government now step up and seriously support the forces that work for peace.

I naturally stand behind all of the Vänsterpartiet's five reservations but only move for the approval of Vänsterpartiet's and Miljöpartiet's reservation number 11 regarding the war in Gaza.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! On June 9 is the EU election. The outcome will determine whether we hold the line against Putin and Orbán forces, against climate deniers and against disinformation – for freedom, peace and climate.

The year 2023 - the year of the government's letter - was naturally a springboard ahead of the election year 2024. It was a year when the EU promised Ukraine ammunition but failed to deliver, and promised tougher sanctions against Putin's war chest but did not deliver fully, even though new sanction packages were added. So we can show several steps.

Unity is sometimes said to be the goal, but unity can mean that one follows the one who wants the least and that it is the one who wants the least who sets the agenda. It means that it is Viktor Orbán, for example, who is leading the orchestra. That is not a unity to strive for.

We must sharpen the EU's capacity in foreign policy, security policy, and defense policy. It is about credibility. When we speak about human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, it requires that we ourselves live up to what we say and that we ensure that the EU's member states actually do so. Otherwise, our voice lacks credibility when we speak to others.

We have a struggle of values globally between authoritarian forces and liberal forces. There are others as well, but one can mainly see it that way.

From the Center Party's side, we are clear that we want to use the democracy lock and that it should be an effective democracy lock like the one the EU has. We have also said that the possibility of exclusion must be on the table - if one does not deliver after repeated demands.

The EU needs to develop more tools in its toolbox to be able to meet the breadth of threats that the EU faces today, which all member states face. There has been talk of hybrid threats in the form of a Russian fleet in the Baltic Sea. It is truly a hybrid threat for us, not just a shadow fleet. It is a hybrid attack that Russia has arranged. But it is only one of many different attacks that are constantly ongoing. More power is required for the EU to be something to reckon with.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 3 under point 1.

As I have mentioned, 2023 was a year in which we saw how Hungary, under Orbán's leadership, continued its authoritarian journey, to be Putin's Trojan horse in the EU and to stop, prevent and delay support for Ukraine and more powerful sanctions against Russia. Ultimately, it was also about the question of membership for both Ukraine and Moldova, but above all Ukraine in this situation. Even though we could see that he eventually left the room in order to be able to resolve that question, this shows how incredibly difficult it is to reach a consensus and how much one has to give. It cost a fair amount of rule-of-law money and a part of the democratic lock to get this done. This is something that one must manage to handle.

But at the same time, during 2023, we have seen Poland make a different choice. They have switched from the authoritarian line to a liberal one. They stand up for more of the rule of law that the EU is based on. I think that is a positive picture to take away from 2023. People make a difference, and people's choices make a difference. People's choices on June 9 will, in the same way as the Polish people's choice during 2023, make a difference in terms of which path the EU takes forward. Is it to be more authoritarian-minded forces, more populists, more nationalists and more extremists, or more liberal and freedom-loving forces? That is where the choice lies.

It is a matter of maintaining the line. The EU must be able to both set and maintain boundaries. One naturally also needs to have the ability to handle sanctions. The question of sharper EU sanctions has been touched upon in several ways. It has been a question of Magnitsky sanctions, which have eventually been implemented but not fully. We have, in fact, not managed to meet the systematic money laundering and corruption that is ongoing and which is part of the bloodstream that truly benefits the authoritarian forces. Here, one must not only speak but also act and maintain the line. More is required here.

We have, from our side, wanted to see a more powerful sanctions regime against Russian oil, gas, banking, and Rosatom than we have managed to achieve. We know why we are not getting there. It is because it is difficult to reach an agreement because there are Trojan horses in the room. It poses challenges for all of us. We must meet them better moving forward.

We have seen national Magnitsky sanctions as a way to challenge. When one reads the report, it appears as if we should only have Swedish ones, but we see that other countries around us have those types of solutions. We think that one should build from a bottom-up perspective and perhaps cooperate in the Nordics and the Baltics. We know that the Baltic states have corresponding possibilities, and in that way, we can create a critical mass to influence and contribute to shifting positions also in the EU. This is something that we point out in one of our motions, which I, however, do not move for approval here and now.

Another question is the one about a tribunal. We heard earlier about the EU center to be able to collect evidence. That is good. But one must go all the way to the point where the national assembly decides on a tribunal that can truly address the crime of aggression that Russia has committed. It is important to keep that question alive and not leave it.

Mr. Speaker! There is an announcement here, which is not so common in this situation. It is about the fact that the legal basis for terror listing must be changed. The Council's position from 2001 was characterized by the events of September 11, 9/11, when the world was shocked by what happened in New York. A legal basis was then created that does not take into account what has happened since 2001. We have seen state-supported terror groups, for example Wagner, and we have worked to get that terror listing. We also see what is happening with IRGC, but when we try to push these issues, it is always said that there is no legal basis.

The EU must be able to create a legal basis and update the existing basis for terror listing. It seems as if in several places it is now realized that more of this should have been done during the years that have passed. We hope that the government now really makes a breakthrough in the matter and does not just seek consensus but actually tries to push forward even if it costs.

It is good that we have reached this announcement. It is once again about setting boundaries and maintaining the boundary even if it costs and causes a bit of a stir. In that way, we too can create shifts. It should not only be the authoritarian, backward-looking forces that set goals and try to create a shift of our values.

Hold the line for freedom, for peace and for the climate, also in the upcoming election!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a dark time, where the rules-based world order is facing challenges from authoritarian countries such as Russia, Iran, and China. It is a period where fundamental values such as peace, freedom, and democracy must once again be defended. These are the same values that once inspired three Christian Democrats in Europe - Adenauer, Schuman, and De Gasperi - to start the European community as a peace project with the goal of never again war.

The EU is Sweden's primary foreign policy platform, and a strong and united EU can give Swedish positions on global issues impact in a way that would otherwise not be possible. The goals for the EU's common foreign and security policy include promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights, as well as working for conflict prevention and international security. Sweden has expressed an ambition to push for the EU to strengthen its role as a foreign, security, and defense policy actor, which is also seen in the implementation of the strategic compass, the military capability development and the promotion of the European defense industry.

The European Council has, since the start of Russia's unprovoked, illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, emphasized the importance of accountability and support for the investigation of the Russian and Belarusian aggressions as well as other war crimes. The Council has also given its support for the work to create a tribunal to prosecute the crimes against Ukraine and a future compensation mechanism. Sweden participates in the core group working to establish a tribunal for the adjudication of the aggression against Ukraine.

The EU and its member states constitute the world's leading donors of aid. Sweden's government has, in its reform agenda for aid, emphasized the EU's importance as a channel for Swedish aid and the importance of achieving development effectiveness. The reform agenda clarifies the government's intention to contribute to strengthening the EU's role as a global actor, while striving for the EU's development cooperation to be characterized by openness and follow the agreed principles for effective development cooperation at an international level.

Mr. Speaker! Last year was particularly significant for Sweden within the EU cooperation, not least considering that during the first half of the year, for the third time, we took on the role of Presidency. The ambition was clear: to make the EU safer, greener, and freer.

Specifically, this meant that Ukraine was placed at the top of the priority list. A support for Ukraine that is as long-term and united as possible must still be the ambition both for every new decision in EU circles and for every dialogue with our partners.

The EU is now taking the issue of the union's competitiveness seriously and making necessary reforms, safeguarding the strength of the internal market and seeking more free trade. With Fit for 55 in place, with everything it entails for Swedish business, and the firm defense of the EU's fundamental values and the member states' legal institutions, the presidency received a very good grade unanimously, and our expanded network of contacts creates good opportunities to get the union to focus on its core values.

Mr. Speaker! The EU of the future needs both borders and freedom. Europe faces several extensive challenges: irregular migration flows, the threat from Russia, dependence on China, and climate change. To meet these, we must once again define what we want the EU to be and which values we strive for.

The core mission must be clear: to guarantee peace, freedom, and free trade. Unfortunately, we see a tendency for more and more details to be regulated in Brussels, which leads away from this mission.

Security and independence must be strengthened, especially given the serious security situation that Europe faces. It requires a reinforced defense industry, an expansion of Frontex to secure the borders, and a reduced dependence on China.

The EU should not regulate forest and land in detail. Instead, we need to see its potential, particularly within agriculture and forestry, which form part of the solution for both the climate challenge and for food security. A realistic climate policy with a popular anchoring is crucial to reach the 2040 goals. An important part of the climate goals is to accelerate electrification and speed up investments in nuclear power.

Economic and personal freedom in the union must be prioritized, and the internal market needs to continue to develop. At the same time, updated legislation is required to enable innovation, particularly within digitalization and AI. The EU should not interfere in the member states' social policy. It is important to respect national sovereignty, especially when it comes to issues such as healthcare, social insurance, and the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden, like other member states, faces a European election that will shape the future of the EU. We should strive for what best serves both Sweden and Europe. Today, I therefore move for approval of reservation 7. In all other respects, the Christian Democrats support the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There is war in Europe. Ukraine has been invaded by the authoritarian Russia, which is trying to deprive the Ukrainians of their right to freedom, democracy, and self-determination.

At the same time, the civilian population in Gaza is experiencing hell on earth. Israel's war against the terrorist organization Hamas, following Hamas's terror attacks on October 7, has resulted in the merciless killing of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.

In Yemen, over 2 million children under the age of five are malnourished, and 90,000 children are estimated to have died as a result of the nine-year war.

The brutal war in Sudan, which flared up again a little over a year ago, has resulted in the world's largest child refugee crisis with over 4 million children fleeing the violence.

In this turbulent global situation, the EU shall act in solidarity with those whose independence, democratic freedoms, and fundamental human rights are threatened. The EU shall be a leading voice for international law. It has proven extra important to have a strong and stable EU in these matters when more and more European governments, including our Swedish one, act in a populist, unpredictable manner and without consequence analysis. From one day to the next, they stop vital aid and break long-standing cooperation. In this way, one throws thousands of innocent civilians under the bus, or under the tanks in this case.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is our most important forum for international cooperation. Together, we shall meet an increasingly polarized world with democratic cooperation and alliance-building. The EU shall work for conflict prevention and crisis preparedness, both within and outside the Union's borders. Foreign and security policy shall be equal and inclusive.

Today we face many different security policy crises and challenges. Our society is characterized by everything from climate change and pandemics to cyberattacks and attacks on democracy and freedom of speech. In order for us to be able to meet these different types of threats, increased crisis preparedness within the EU and more investments in a green, sustainable, and long-term civil defense are required.

The work for peace is about resolving the conflicts that are ongoing but also about working to ensure that wars never break out. It is about solidarity and about ensuring that our societies are stable and secure and can handle crisis situations. The goal is to leave behind a safer, fairer and more sustainable world for future generations.

Mr. Speaker! Now, Russia's full-scale war of invasion in Ukraine has been ongoing for nearly two and a half years. This war is of a completely unique character. It is a unilateral and unprovoked invasion, and the Ukrainian armed forces must have resources to defend the country's independence and freedom. We must not lose focus or lose our grip on the support and the promises we have given Ukraine. Our solidarity must not falter, regardless of what representatives of certain populist parties say. Ukraine belongs in Europe; both history and the Ukrainian people's will show this. This is something we must also continue to make clear to Putin.

At the same time as the economic and military support to Ukraine continues, the EU must stop playing double games with the Russian regime. It is completely unacceptable that the EU's countries have purchased Russian fossil fuels for nearly 200 billion euros over the last two years. The Russian revenues from these purchases, which have gone straight into Putin's war machine, are significantly larger than the total sum of the EU's and the member states' financial, military, and humanitarian support to Ukraine during the same period. Not even Sweden's government has succeeded in stopping the Russian gas imports to Sweden in two years, despite agreement in the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! It is required that the EU and the member states continue to support Ukraine humanitarily, economically and militarily in the fight against Russia for as long as is needed. It is also required that the EU and the member states immediately stop all energy imports from Russia. It is required that all crimes against international law, international humanitarian law and international law on human rights as well as ecocide crimes in and in connection with the war in Ukraine are investigated. It is furthermore required that a special tribunal be established to investigate and prosecute those responsible for Russia's crimes of aggression against Ukraine, with political and economic support from the member states.

It is required that the EU continues to actively support the reconstruction of Ukraine and the Ukrainian work to meet the criteria for EU membership, as well as that the EU continues to support free media, opposition, and civil society organizations in Russia and Belarus.

Mr. Speaker! With each passing day, the suffering in Gaza reaches new, unimaginable levels. The threat comes not only from the bombs raining down over Gaza but also from the lack of food, water, medicine, and healthcare. Miljöpartiet distances itself from both all forms of terrorist attacks and from warfare that violates humanitarian law and human rights.

To see violence as a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is a dead end. In that way, more human lives will be wasted. War crimes can never justify new war crimes. Killing civilians to fight terrorists is unacceptable. It is an evil spiral that only breeds more violence, hatred, and destruction. Both Palestinians and Israelis have a right to freedom, development, and security within secure and recognized borders. The EU should take an active role in the long-term work for reconciliation and peace and pave the way for a sustainable two-state solution.

Mr. Speaker! It is required that the EU acts powerfully for a permanent ceasefire and that Israel stops the relentless violence against the civilian population of Gaza. According to the principle of responsibility to protect, the duty to protect, the EU has a responsibility to protect civilian people when it is suspected that war crimes are being committed.

When the Swedish government wavers in its support for civilians, it is required that the EU ensures the economic support needed for the UN agency UNRWA to be able to carry out its work. It is required that the EU works to ensure that the hostages held by Hamas and the 5,000 illegally detained persons held by Israel are released and can be reunited with their families.

The EU must pause the association agreement with Israel, because Israel violates Article 2 of the agreement regarding respect for human rights and democratic principles. No EU money should also go to Israeli research projects that contribute to Israel's warfare and the oppression of Palestine. The EU and the member states must immediately stop all arms exports to and all military cooperation with Israel.

Sweden should push for the EU to place settlers and political leaders in Israel who incite violence on the EU's sanctions list and for the EU to immediately introduce a ban on products from illegal settlements.

Finally, the EU must work to achieve a sustainable peace process that leads to a just two-state solution.

Mr. Speaker! Tax evasion is a problem that affects almost all the world's countries. Developing countries are estimated to lose around 1,700 billion kronor every year as a result of tax evasion. This is far more than the world's total aid. In Sweden, this figure is around 23 billion annually, which is more than the total support to Ukraine and Palestine. For the entire EU, tax evasion is estimated to correspond to around 650 billion kronor. It is an unimaginably high figure.

When some parties' representatives begin to see limits to the support for Ukraine, and when our government wants to limit the aid and preferably phase out the support for Palestine, a more powerful effort against tax evasion could quickly free up significantly more money and resources for support to, for example, Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen and Sudan than the EU has managed to mobilize so far.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all the reservations from Miljöpartiet, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 4.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating a report where we look back, with a particular focus on the Swedish presidency. But just like many before me, I thought I would take the liberty of also looking a bit forward.

But first, a look back. The goal of the Swedish presidency was to make Europe a little safer, greener and freer, and we succeeded in that.

Extensive support was secured for Ukraine in its fight against Russia's horrific war of aggression. We agreed to deliver 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine, introduced several new sanction packages against Russia, took the initiative to freeze Russian assets to finance Ukraine's reconstruction, and negotiated a tribunal to investigate and prosecute Russia's war crimes.

Our liberal Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari, took the world's most ambitious climate package into action. Fit for 55 has changed the game for climate policy, and the EU has taken the lead in the climate issue.

Sweden, through its presidency, focused on strengthening the EU's competitiveness and productivity, not least by powerfully pushing for continued global free trade at a time when protectionism is again making large gains - and this is something the government continues to push for.

Much has been done, but more remains to be done as we look forward.

Mr. Speaker! Democracy is a perishable commodity. Europe's liberal values are still under threat, and parties on both the right and the left want to weaken European cooperation. But a stronger Europe is a prerequisite for a stronger Sweden. Ukraine must win against Putin, and both Sweden and the EU must continue to increase support for Ukraine until the last Russian soldier has left the country. For this to happen, joint procurement of defense materiel and even more and more effective sanctions are needed, as well as that Russian assets in Europe be seized and channeled toward reconstruction, that the import of oil and gas from Russia ceases, and that the EU acts internationally to stop the Russian shadow fleet in the Baltic Sea. Ukraine must also be welcomed into the European community - for Ukraine's and all of Europe's freedom.

Mr. Speaker! In Europe, human rights and liberal democracy should be a given. At the same time, we see how developments in several countries, not just in Hungary but also in Slovakia, are heading in the wrong direction. We must therefore equip the EU with the tools required to ensure respect for democracy and the principles of the rule of law.

The fundamental right to free and safe abortion shall be guaranteed in all EU countries. A woman shall have the right to choose regardless of whether she lives in Malmö or in Malta. The right to abortion must be constitutionally protected at the EU level.

Mr. Speaker! It is together that we can make the greatest difference. That is how it has been historically, and that is also how it is when we look forward.

The Liberals have for decades worked for stronger animal welfare on all European farms. In a look back, the star of the Liberal MEP Marit Paulsen shines brightly on this issue. In her time, she led the work to achieve a common European animal welfare law. It set a minimum standard for how animals may be treated in Europe. But the work continues. EU legislation must be tightened so that the minimum level of European animal welfare is raised and becomes more like in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The EU must continue to be the world's leading climate organization. For that to become a reality, Fit for 55 is a good step along the way, but more can be done. Climate ambitions must be stepped up, and even more investments in nuclear power, solar, wind, and water need to be made throughout Europe. Here, all EU countries must shoulder their responsibility, and therefore the Liberals have proposed that the EU Commission should be given a mandate to stop the decommissioning of safe nuclear power in the EU's member states. The nuclear power skeptics must not steer the European climate policy.

Mr. Speaker! Just as many have already pointed out, there is less than a month left until the European Parliament election. It is with great concern that I see how the right-wing populist forces in Europe are growing stronger. There are parties that want to see a cap on the support for Ukraine, limit the rights of LGBTQI persons, and tear up the EU's most ambitious climate package ever.

Finally: In the autumn, the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council of Ministers awaits. Hungary has a government that not only signs agreements with the dictatorship in Beijing and fails Ukraine but also, in practice, opposes the values on which the EU rests. A relevant question to ask is whether Viktor Orbán can be allowed to bear the heavy responsibility of leading the EU's work at a time when so much is at stake. If freedom in Europe is to be defended, such forces must be combated and European cooperation deepened. A stronger Europe gives a stronger Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I reacted to the end of Elin Nilsson's speech when, without mentioning the Sweden Democrats by name, she nevertheless highlighted the Sweden Democrats' policy at the EU level and what is problematic with it regarding the climate issue and the view on LGBTQ people.

Elin Nilsson also spoke out against Viktor Orbán, who in the middle of the summer takes over the presidency of the EU. We are now entering a formative period in the EU given that the European Parliament election means a new parliament and that the conditions for the European Parliament can be set for a long time to come. Many of us have demanded that Hungary should be deprived of the presidency in the EU because they violate the principles of the rule of law, and I wonder how Elin Nilsson views that. I believe it would be an important signal. But unfortunately, it does not seem to be the case, and Orbán appears to still be able to obtain power through his strong position and that he repeatedly blocks within the EU cooperation.

But the core issue is actually not Viktor Orbán but the Sweden Democrats and their group in the European Parliament, ECR. Now Elin Nilsson clearly distances herself from her partner in the Swedish Riksdag. In today's EU report, the Sweden Democrats portray themselves as the EU-critical party but are the only party that has no reservation. The Sweden Democrats set the agenda in the Riksdag and steer the government from the backseat. Does Elin Nilsson want this situation in the European Parliament? The risk is, in fact, great that we end up there after the European Parliament election and that the Sweden Democrats' group ECR is strengthened and also the other right-wing extremist group. Then it will not be possible to form broad center majorities where the Liberals' group Alde can jump back and forth.

How does Elin Nilsson view the cooperation with the Sweden Democrats at the EU level?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Håkan Svenneling for the question.

For everyone who is somewhat familiar with European politics and the politics conducted in the European Parliament, there are no question marks regarding how we view a cooperation with the Sweden Democrats and their group in the European Parliament. It is not something we strive for, and we are often a strong counterpoint to the politics they pursue. During this term, the liberal group in the European Parliament has often been the deciding factor, and we hope to be able to continue to be so.

Our ambition is to continue to drive a liberal center policy. We have no ambitions to support either parties on the left wing or parties on the right wing in the European Parliament.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Elin Nilsson says that there are no question marks. I would like to say that there are many question marks surrounding the Liberals' choice of path. Many of us were questioning the Liberals' choice of path before the 2022 election in Sweden, and now we have seen how it has led to the Sweden Democrats sitting in the back seat and governing the government that the Liberals are part of.

The Sweden Democrats are not directly unclear. Their top candidate Charlie Weimers has come out and said that he wants a Tidö agreement, but at a European level. He envisions that he will cooperate with the Liberals and that the Liberals will lie down as flat as one does in Sweden over and over again at a European level. He envisions that it will be the Liberals who open the door for him so that he can do what the Liberals say one opposes. And he has the help of government representatives in Italy's Meloni, in Slovakia's Fico and in Hungary's Orbán.

As Kerstin Lundgren was in, we have the luck of having reclaimed Poland. There, left-wing forces together with liberal forces have reclaimed power, reclaimed the right for public service to operate. As recently as yesterday, the Liberals presented an investigation that shrinks the space for public service by cutting its budget when costs increase. It is the development we see in Hungary and Poland and which we are worried will come to Sweden and to the European Parliament.

I still wonder if Elin Nilsson can clear up these question marks that I still see when it comes to the cooperation between the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! There were highs and lows in the member's speech, but I will try to answer briefly and concisely.

Before the 2022 general election, the Liberals were clear that we can talk with everyone to move forward. We did that. It led to the cooperation that exists in the Swedish Riksdag today. It was not unexpected for the voters. People knew what they were voting for when they voted for the Liberals. This is a result that we envisioned. We take responsibility for Sweden. We tackle major societal problems.

When it comes to the European Parliament, it is not that situation. There, the structure looks different. There, we do not envision a cooperation with the group that the Sverigedemokraterna are part of.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! On 29 February this year, the government submitted its report Activities in the European Union during 2023 to the Riksdag. Subsequently, the government has received the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report UU10 on the government's report. I too, Mr. Speaker, will look both backward and a little forward.

During the spring of 2023, Sweden, as you know, was the chair of the Council of the European Union. I reported on this when I was here in the chamber on March 13 to debate the letter and the report on the Swedish EU presidency. I do not intend to repeat what I said then, except on one point. I would like to take the opportunity once again to thank for the good and constructive cooperation we had with the Riksdag during the Swedish presidency. I also want to thank my predecessor Hans Dahlgren for everything he did before the presidency and the good cooperation he and I had in connection with the change of government.

Mr. Speaker! The year 2023 became yet another year in which much of the work in the EU unfortunately came to revolve around conflicts. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine continued to characterize the EU work. Hamas's terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7 and the subsequent Israeli military intervention in Gaza brought yet another conflict high up on the agenda.

Even though the conflicts received significant and necessary space, a great deal of other things also happened during 2023 that are worth highlighting. I intended to mention some of these things: At Swedish initiative, the Commission presented a strategy for a long-term competitiveness agenda during the spring. The Fit for 55 climate package was brought to fruition. During the autumn, discussions on the strategic agenda began. During the year, an agreement was reached on the migration and asylum pact. Rule of law issues continued to be high on the agenda. Inquiries regarding Poland and Hungary took place in accordance with the Article 7 procedure in the EU Treaty.

Mr. Speaker! I have read the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report with great interest. I note that the committee proposes a notice to the government in connection with motions for a review of the rules for the EU's sanctions against terrorism. I also note that the committee wants more detailed information on infringement cases and judgments.

I can state that we are considering how we can meet the requests that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has without it leading to unreasonably long texts. Furthermore, I think it is positive that several committees and the EU Committee have chosen to share their experiences in the form of opinions to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The issues addressed in the opinions testify to the breadth and the deep commitment that exists.

Mr. Speaker! The activities in the EU in 2023 are behind us. As we now look forward, we have an exciting and important year ahead of us. In less than a month, there is an election to the European Parliament, and after that, a new commission shall be appointed. When the EU's heads of state and government meet at the end of June at the European Council meeting, they shall adopt priorities for the coming five years, the so-called strategic agenda.

The members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and I discussed the strategic agenda when I visited the committee as recently as last week. I therefore did not intend to repeat myself here either, but I can briefly state that the government's priorities regarding the strategic agenda in all essential aspects are based on the priorities we had during the Swedish presidency: safer, greener and freer.

Support for Ukraine remains at the top of the agenda, but the government also emphasizes competitiveness, energy and the green transition, the management of migration, cross-border crime and the principles of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker! Leading the work in the Council during the Swedish presidency was a significant boost in competence for us politicians and for the officials in the administration. I want to thank my colleagues who, after the change of government, quickly had to familiarize themselves with EU policy. It can, as you know, be quite complex at times, but Sweden succeeded. It was a very well-executed presidency.

Now we must all manage and develop the lessons we have learned. Sweden shall have a continued strong voice within the EU cooperation. We have therefore, among other things, launched a new and deepened form of consultation and cooperation with the business community, labor market partners, and other important representatives. We call them EU working groups. Fundamentally, it is about clearer and better substantiated positions being forged, because the more interesting we become as partners for other member states, the more we can strengthen our influence in the EU's various negotiation processes.

If we are not prepared, Sweden will end up on the sidelines of the negotiating table in Brussels, just as if we enter too late and too little in the processes. Here, I truly believe that we must work together.

Mr. Speaker! Another important issue for strengthening Sweden's influence is to get more Swedes into the EU's institutions. Even though the employees in the institutions should have the common good in mind, it is important that there is an understanding of all member states' conditions and perspectives and a geographical balance. This prior understanding is lost if we have fewer and fewer Swedes in the institutions. Therefore, we are now investing in increasing that number.

We do this partly in the short term by developing our information and networking work in Brussels and with the Council of Universities and Colleges, and partly through long-term work. We are investing in increasing the number of Swedish interns in the institutions, we are increasing the number of scholarships to the College of Europe, which is an important gateway to the EU's institutions, and we are actively working with mentorship programs. These measures may not yield quick results, but in the long run, they will lead to change.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has lifted the issue of EU enlargement high on the political agenda. During the last half-year, the EU's leaders have decided that Ukraine, Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina shall begin membership negotiations. That Ukraine applied for EU membership immediately after the Russian invasion has contributed to a new focus on the enlargement.

There are several candidate countries in the Western Balkans. Last year I visited Albania and North Macedonia, and this year I have visited Bosnia and Herzegovina. What has struck me when I have met people from the candidate countries is how incredibly much a future EU membership means to them.

Last week, the Minister for Foreign Trade in Georgia was [present/there] following the recent negative developments, which several here have spoken about. At the same time, EU flags are being waved in the street. I can only agree with everything that Linnéa Wickman and Ann-Sofie Alm said about the developments there and that the people support a closer relationship with the EU. It is clear that more people want to be part of the European Union. Here, it is not just about when or how, but it is also about being ready for the EU's part.

As can be read in the communication, a first in-depth discussion on the EU's future was held during the EU ministers' informal meeting in Uppsala in June last year. Since then, the issues of the future have been discussed continuously, also against the background of an upcoming expansion. We will certainly have reason to return to these questions - the questions of the future and the questions of expansion.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I state that 2023 was a very good year for Sweden in the EU. We have led the work in the Council of the European Union. We have influenced the direction of EU policy, among other things, that competitiveness has been placed high on the political agenda.

The government is now restructuring Swedish EU policy to strengthen Sweden's voice within the EU cooperation. We are deepening the forms of consultation and cooperation, and we are working both short- and long-term to get more Swedes into the institutions. It is good for Sweden, and it is good for the EU.

The Government's communication to the Riksdag contains many pressing areas that the EU will need to continue working on during the year.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm (M) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I slipped in a bit on this issue in the exchange of remarks I had with Elin Nilsson from the Liberals. One of the big questions after the EU election is, after all, how one is to form a political majority when the election is over.

It is great that there are many school students up in the stands so that we can have a brief overview of how the EU works versus Sweden. In Swedish politics, one usually forms a majority, as the government has done with what are commonly called the Tidö parties, but in the EU, there are fluid majorities where different party groups constitute different majorities on different issues.

It is often the case that the right-conservative group, to which Jessika Roswall belongs, settles accounts with social democrats with the support of liberals and the green group in the European Parliament. But in recent years, the two far-right groups in the European Parliament have gained more power and influence and have been admitted by the right-conservative group EPP.

After the election on June 9, the two far-right groups are judged to be growing, and the question is whether this will result in increased power and influence. In Sweden, the Moderaterna gave power to the racists in Sverigedemokraterna through the Tidö Agreement, even though they were kept out of the government. The question is whether Moderaterna plans to make a Tidö Agreement at the European level. Charlie Weimers from Sverigedemokraterna is very clear that this is what is wanted. Do Moderaterna intend to give the far-right, such as Le Pen, Meloni, and Orbán, power in the EU?

The Sweden Democrats have now, in TV4's investigation, shown that they have a number of idiots and trolls, and these are not cozy trolls taken from John Bauer's fairy tales but internet trolls who organizedly harass and spread disinformation. They create fake account after fake account that generate thousands of posts and create followers.

In response, we see a trumpism where one goes on the full attack and blames large established media houses for disinformation, while simultaneously running a fake media house and hiding behind humor. I wonder: How does Minister Roswall view these fake accounts?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to focus on the communication, the committee's report and what we are talking about: the EU. I will not fully answer the question of how the European Parliament will unite. I do not think they would appreciate it if another parliament interfered in that.

During the time we led the Council of Ministers during the presidency, I had the great honor of representing Sweden in Strasbourg, above all, so I have good knowledge of how the parliament functions. I have also compared a good deal with how our fantastic parliament functions, but I shall not spend time on that either.

I believe I can answer generally without interfering too much in how the European Parliament organizes itself. I would say it like this: I believe it is important to gather majorities to get your policy through. That is how this government has worked here, and that is how I believe one must do it.

If you believe in something, if you have an idea and if you want to address problems and challenges in society, you must gather a majority for your ideas and proposals. That is how I hope my party colleagues in the European Parliament will also continue to work. That is my answer today.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are facing an EU election, and I am convinced that EU Minister Jessika Roswall has a certain influence over the Moderate Members of the European Parliament and that she is part of the types of circles, which I assume the Prime Minister also belongs to, where the paths that the Moderates want to take are discussed.

The Moderates have previously shown themselves successful in, for example, excluding Orbán from their party group precisely because he has been too far-right. I also believe it is important that one, as an EU minister in an EU election, discusses the question of how the election is conducted, and that is why I raise the fake accounts that the Sweden Democrats' troll factory creates.

We now have less than a month left until the election. When I take out my phone or when the students in the stands take out their phones, how do we know if the posts shared on social media are fake or real? Do the students know if someone is hiding behind humor to smear their political opponents and actively spread disinformation, or if it is correct information?

Both Jessika Roswall and I have a great responsibility to ensure that this is a correct and proper debate. But we have a party, Sweden's second-largest party here in the Riksdag, which actively operates fake accounts to spread disinformation in order to create an election movement that does not follow the democratic rules of the game that we have agreed upon.

I want to hear from the EU Minister that she wants to see an election campaign without fake accounts and that she wants to see a fair EU campaign where arguments stand against each other and where one points out which direction one wants for the EU in a straight, clear, and debating way. This will determine how strong Swedish democracy is, how strong democracy is when it comes to engaging people so that they participate in the EU election, that they go and vote and that they cast their vote for political parties, not for parties that spread political disinformation.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are two parts to this that I want to respond to.

As an EU minister or as a politician in general, I want to see a high voter turnout in all elections, but especially in the European Parliament election. Or no, I change my mind, it should be in all elections. It is because such big issues are at stake, the issues that we have talked about here: security, climate change and crime. All these issues require common answers, which requires that we also go and vote in this incredibly important election.

I do my part there. We parties have a great responsibility. The government has allocated money to, among other things, school elections, in light of the fact that we have youth in the stands. There, I believe we all have an important role. Ahead of the election, we see a concern for increased disinformation. We see this in many countries. We have had party deliberations where we have looked at which risks we see. There, we must not be naive at all, but we must be vigilant and ensure that we counteract all the disinformation that exists.

As said, the parties have a great responsibility here. I think that together with our authorities we have a good cooperation to counteract this. I have just come from Greece where we talked a lot about how the election is affected by various disinformation campaigns.

The answer to Håkan Svenneling's question is, of course, that I want a fair election campaign. I will, in any case, do my part in that regard.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for being here and debating with us in the committee today!

I will ask a few questions linked to the announcement that the Riksdag will very soon make to the government regarding updating the EU's basis for sanctions when it comes to terrorism. The High Representative Josep Borrell said as recently as the end of April in the European Parliament that the legal conditions are not deemed to be in place for a terror listing of the IRGC.

It is quite clear and obvious that the current regulatory framework needs to be updated so that we, from the EU's side, can effectively combat terrorism and use the sanctions tool better than we succeed with today.

For us Social Democrats, it is not possible to wait another year to see what the government might eventually do in EU circles. We risk losing even more time given that there could have been an announcement in place already a year ago regarding this. Now that the announcement is coming – how will the government work expeditiously in EU circles to drive this issue?

While I have the floor, I shall also take the opportunity to move for the approval of reservation 5. It must be correct and proper. It is not common practice for us to propose announcements, and the reservations have changed slightly since the committee processed the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my speech, I have read the committee's report. As a former Member of Parliament, I really appreciate doing so, even if some of my colleagues think I am exaggerating. It was long and good. I just read this part backwards and forwards, and I have also read and taken note of what the Foreign Minister has said in various discussions.

I disagree with what Linnéa Wickman says about what the government will and will not eventually do. The Foreign Minister has several times been clear that we have, on the one hand, pursued the position anchored in the Riksdag when it comes to the IRGC, and on the other hand, worked to achieve EU unity on listing. But that was not quite what Linnéa Wickman asked me about now.

We have also pushed that the EU institutions need to review the legal prerequisites. Just as Linnéa Wickman mentioned in her speech, there are different opinions about them among lawyers. We will, of course, continue to push, consult other member states, and cooperate with other countries in various ways. This government will, as said, be active and strong. I am not ashamed in the slightest and have no problem being uncomfortable in certain situations, and neither do my colleagues. We push forward, but it also requires several others to get things through.

It is therefore not possible to claim that we might not do anything. We will continue to push forward to do what is necessary.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must state that a year ago, a majority in the Swedish Riksdag opposed our push to create an analysis of what needs to be done in the EU to change the legal conditions and the basis for terror listings.

When we Social Democrats had deliberations with the government regarding the issue of IRGC just over a year ago, we were not heard because the government was then to return within six months with a legal analysis of what might need to be done to take steps forward in the EU. Who knows – had we had a majority with us then, perhaps we would have come further today in the EU circles.

Sweden has, not least when it comes to the legal support for Ukraine, championed the development of it and how we use international law in this. Now it is obvious that we need to update the EU's tools, and Sweden needs to champion this.

I understand what the Minister says, of course. We will certainly follow the work and hope that the government promptly begins to work in the EU circles based on the need for a new legal basis. It is, after all, urgent to have the tools needed in place to combat international terrorism that threatens people both in their own countries - Iran is a clear example - and in the whole world and our security here in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Linnéa Wickman and I probably agree on the importance of having the possibility of sanction systems and that one needs to work actively to develop them as they go, but it is also always about balance, efficiency, and legal certainty. I am not a lawyer enough to comment precisely on this, but from the Swedish side, we are driving this in accordance with the mandate that the government has from the Riksdag and which we have developed well together.

We will have to return to this. I am quite certain that the Social Democrats and Linnéa Wickman will return to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! This will be a kind of summary of the debate.

When it comes to terror listing and the legal basis, the government has given the committee the impression that there is nothing more to be done. But now there is obviously momentum in EU circles, and it is therefore important that the government acts promptly and listens to the demand to upgrade the legal basis. We should not have al-Qaida as the model for terror listing.

Another question concerns an international tribunal. It almost appeared as if the government had negotiated an international tribunal for crimes of aggression. It was not the Minister who said it, but it was heard in the debate. I just want to get a clarification of how things actually stand, since the Minister has been responsible.

It is good that the government, through the clarity of the Minister of Justice in this debate, marks that the issue of violation cases will be taken seriously and that they are considering how to move forward in that work, because it is naturally important to see when violation cases are opened.

I also think it is good that one has been in Georgia, but I wonder if the government and the Council of State are prepared to be clear towards Georgia's government that the path they choose now threatens EU membership and candidate status. It needs to be clear already now. It is important, in addition to providing support to civil society.

Finally: Is the government prepared to push in the EU to tighten the requirements on Israel in order to get in humanitarian aid?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! There were many questions. The question of updating the legal basis was perhaps settled in my previous exchange of remarks.

Kerstin Lundgren began her speech with something along the lines of that the EU had failed during the previous year, and I became a little worried then, but then I felt that it took off. The EU has actually succeeded. I think that the EU during the last year succeeded in maintaining unity and supporting Ukraine. It was an enormous success, just like many other parts.

When it comes to the question of a tribunal, accountability must of course be demanded for the crimes committed by Russia during the aggression. During the chairmanship, we pushed for a tribunal to be established. As Kerstin Lundgren remembers, there were then somewhat different arguments regarding where it should be located. We support the initiative to establish a tribunal for the crime of aggression in Ukraine and that it, in that case, should be a complement to the International Criminal Court.

The important thing is to ensure that evidence is collected already during the war. Sweden supports that work with personnel but also in various ways with expertise. It is appalling figures we can read regarding how much has already been collected concerning what will probably be seen as war crimes. It is enormous figures of perhaps 70,000 or 100,000 cases.

Regarding Georgia, I would like to thank both Linnéa Wickman and Ann-Sofie Alm who raised it in their speeches. I think that we are receiving very serious signals. That is why Johan Forssell was clear when he visited Georgia last week and that is why we are clear with our support for the civil society organizations that exist in Georgia.

I will return to the last question in the next speech.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Georgia is a country with a very strong civil society. It is visible in the streets. I heard reports that 4-4.5 percent of Georgia's population demonstrated last weekend. It is an incredibly strong signal as to where the Georgian people want to go. But unfortunately, the government has chosen another path.

We have heard the leading force in Georgia, Ivanishvili, say that one should be a member of the EU by 2030 at the latest. With the path that Georgia and the current leadership seem to be choosing, the EU must be clear that it is not possible. Georgia truly stands at a crossroads.

It is not enough to merely express support for civil society; one must also be clear in their criticism of the path chosen by the leading forces and dare to challenge Ivanishvili, who is heading the country in a Russian direction. I believe it is an important signal that needs to come from the EU. The EU is far too silent today in that regard. The Georgian people, who have so strongly manifested their opposition, must hear that we are acting and raising our voices.

I hope that the Minister can confirm that the government is prepared to push for a statement from the EU's strong voice in this part.

In the question regarding Israel, it is about open border crossings and a halt to the invasion of Rafah. When it comes to the settlements and the violence in the West Bank, there must be a clear answer, if we are serious about a two-state solution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with Georgia. I agree with what Kerstin Lundgren says. We in the EU must be clear in our criticism, and we are. I do not know exactly what Johan Forssell has said in his meetings, but I am sure he has acted in the same way as I have when I have met various representatives. I have been clear about how an EU approach must proceed. There are very clear criteria that must be met, and we are equally clear towards all candidate countries.

The development in Georgia right now is worrying. Several representatives from the EU's various institutions have visited Georgia to mark this. So, whether the EU has been altogether too silent, we may have different views on.

Regarding the question about Israel, I begin with the settlers in the West Bank, something that several have raised in different reservations—it is mentioned in the report in every case. When I said that I read backwards and forwards, I mean that I perhaps missed whether it was in a reservation or not; I apologize for that.

In any case, the government and most parties here share the same view. At the European Council's latest meeting, decisions were made regarding sanctions against a number of entities, but Sweden's government and Sweden's Riksdag are open to pushing for more.

The situation in Gaza is appalling. The important thing now is that Israel must do more to protect the humanitarian right and ensure that supplies get in. Here, at the European level, we have also secured aid. Last time I was here, we talked about how Cyprus had opened the possibility of sending supplies to Gaza that way. It is absolutely not enough, but it is an important part.

All of this is, of course, something that still ranks high on the agenda, and we must ensure that we put a stop to this.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that the government stands behind a two-state solution and is also open to pushing for more sanctions against settlers. But I would, of course, rather hear that one is pushing and not just that one is open to pushing.

Both the EU and the Swedish government say that they support a two-state solution. If we look beyond the ongoing war in Gaza, which is horrific and which we could talk about for hours, I also want to hear something about a potential future two-state solution, which we do support.

To achieve such a solution and for it to be sustainable, it is required that there are two parties that are in some way equal. But last week, Sweden cast its vote when it came to making Palestine a full member of the UN. We also see many other things that are not equal at all, for example trade. We have duty-free trade with Israel, and this also applies to goods from settlements. Palestinian trade, on the other hand, takes place on Israeli terms, and the goods must go through Israel to reach Europe.

Another example is visa-free travel. Israeli citizens, including settlers, have visa-free travel when they travel to the EU, but Palestinians do not have visa-free travel.

Then we haven't even raised the question of being able to militarily defend oneself against the other party! I will not go into that further, but I want to know how the government can work through the EU to make both parties of the conflict more equal so that a future sustainable two-state solution can be achieved.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Jacob Risberg raised many different parts, and I will probably not answer everything. I know that you have had a specific debate on the issue, and you surely also have regular discussions with the Foreign Minister regarding this.

When Sweden abstained in the mentioned re-vote, we did so together with like-minded countries, such as Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada, Austria, Latvia and Lithuania. As I just told Kerstin Lundgren, it is for us right now absolutely crucial to achieve an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, release of hostages, protection of civilians and humanitarian access. This is something that the government wants to see immediately. It is also something that the EU wants to see immediately.

The question concerned how we work with this within the EU. We do so, of course, among other things by putting pressure. The European Council has adopted conclusions on the issue. And Sweden has been proactive in ensuring that the EU countries' ambassadors gather to press for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.

We are therefore working in different ways, but primarily we do so by having us EU countries gather, raise the issue, and discuss it in various ministerial councils and in the European Council.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It sounds promising that you want to push harder to achieve an immediate ceasefire. But at the same time, we see that the Swedish state, in the midst of an ongoing conflict, is entering into defense material cooperation with various Israeli companies. The government could, of course, stop this.

One could also limit and even completely stop trade with Israel to show that one is serious, especially considering that the trade is duty-free. This is a tax subsidy of the trade with Israel.

Just using words towards Israel and saying "we demand an immediate ceasefire" does not seem to get one very far. We have a lot of other means to resort to. It is welcome that sanctions have been imposed against certain militant settlers, but we could impose sanctions against all settlers. All settlers are, after all, illegally present in the occupied territories. We could show seriousness towards Israel by saying that there will no longer be any duty-free trade. Why should we keep the association agreement when Israel violates its articles, for example the provisions on human rights?

There are a number of things that could be done to push this forward, and not just say "we demand an immediate ceasefire".

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe, as I have said, that the most important thing right now is to get humanitarian aid and supplies to the population in Gaza. That is the focus of our work, and not just ours but also that of all other nations around. In another speech, I mentioned that I have recently been to Greece. Then we spoke a lot about just this.

The EU must speak with a clear voice. That is what we work for - to ensure that it becomes uniform. It also concerns the issue of taking different unilateral measures. If one is to achieve an effect, one works together. That is why I believe in EU cooperation. It is the same thing when it comes to sanctions. If one is to get any effect from them, they are implemented together, and our cooperation takes place within the EU.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! The report we are now debating is extensive, and much of it is relevant in light of the fact that we are approaching the very important EU election with great strides. It is, as is known, an election that stands between the Sweden Democrats and the parties that have consistently chosen to vote for more power to Brussels and less to Sweden.

Against this background, I intended to raise some issues that are very close to my heart, and naturally, I intend to start with Iran. It is no coincidence that today we are submitting a motion to the government regarding an updated framework for terror listing. As is well known, I and the Sverigedemokraterna have for many years regularly pushed for a terror listing of the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard, IRGC. Finally, even a year ago, a majority could clearly declare the same, as our proposal gained support and the government received a motion.

Madam Speaker! However, nothing has happened in practical terms in the EU yet, despite the fact that there have been strong voices in the EU pushing for this, not least my party colleague Charlie Weimers. We have repeatedly been told that a competent authority must state that a specific group has engaged in terrorism for the EU to be able to blacklist the group in question. There are already competent authorities today that have clarified that the IRGC is a terrorist group. But then we have heard the EU Commission's Social Democratic foreign policy representative Josep Borrell spreading falsehoods about the fact that these authorities must exist in the EU.

Madam Speaker! This is not correct. It is sufficient with a competent authority in a third country, why we have a heap of different court decisions to use. Still, these forgers have nestled themselves in with government representatives at the national level in different EU countries, where they are spreading like wildfire.

Madam Speaker! There is also the answer to Linnéa Wickman, who previously touched upon this subject. Already a year ago, in fact, all criteria were met. Actually, it is only the Social Democrat Josep Borrell's unwillingness to move forward with this that is the problem. If the Swedish Social Democrats had succeeded in talking to him, perhaps we would have seen a change.

Madam Speaker! Even if it were possible today to blacklist the IRGC if only the responsible commissioner felt like it, this entire tragic circus has highlighted that the legal framework used within the EU to be able to carry out a terror listing is outdated and deeply inefficient. Just as my party friend Rasmus Giertz stated earlier during the debate, there are significantly more modern rules in, for example, the USA, a country that, like many others, blacklisted the IRGC a long time ago.

We simply cannot have a situation where vital decisions, such as listing obvious terrorist organizations like the IRGC, are blocked by a social democratic EU bureaucrat who has not been elected by anyone. To think that this should not be particularly controversial, but rather a self-evident matter, is [the point].

Madam Speaker! Something that is also addressed in this report and which is related to this are questions concerning specific sanctions. As most who have followed these debates know, the Sverigedemokraterna have been proactive in introducing various forms of Magnitsky sanctions. We believe that a Swedish version of these should be introduced. But we also think that the EU's Magnitsky legislation needs to be broadened to also include corruption and money laundering in order to become more effective.

Furthermore, it has perhaps rarely been more appropriate than now to emphasize the importance of directing Magnitsky sanctions against Azerbaijani perpetrators and leading figures following their indescribable atrocities when they unprovokedly chose to invade Armenia and Artsakh. What we saw in the latest war should not have surprised anyone. Yet, it could still happen in broad daylight without those responsible in the Azerbaijani dictatorship being significantly affected.

Madam Speaker! Another issue that I intended to highlight specifically and which is addressed in this report is how the EU should tackle the Cuban communist dictatorship. Ever since the Cuban revolution in 1959, Cubans have chosen to risk their lives to take boats across to the USA, sometimes by only using homemade rafts. In fact, one in ten Cubans has chosen to leave their homeland. They have been able to testify to the extensive oppression that occurs in this dictatorship.

Furthermore, we know thanks to extensive testimonies from among others MR activists that the attacks against those who advocate for democracy have been constant and in several cases also worsened, not only through increased harassment but also by the number of political prisoners, who are often subjected to relentless and daily torture, has increased. The prisoners who are hit hardest are minors, women and LGBT persons.

Madam Speaker! It is thus no secret that freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association, or anything that can even be compared to free elections do not exist in this rogue state. Nevertheless, in 2019, the Riksdag chose to defy the human rights defenders and the Cuban exiles when they warned against the deeply criticized EU-Cuba agreement, PDCA. The said agreement meant, in short, that one legitimized the deeply undemocratic Cuban communist regime. At the same time, the political democratic opposition has been actively kept out of the conversations.

What we know today is also that the situation since this agreement was concluded has not improved, but on the contrary. Furthermore, we have clearly seen how this regime has sent Cuban soldiers to fight on Russia's side in the horrific war against Ukraine. It is therefore extra pleasing in this context that the government, through the Minister for Development Cooperation and Trade, has opened up for us to terminate this shameful EU-Cuba agreement, which actually contributes to the indescribable evil that we see in Ukraine.

Madam Speaker! In these times, we see how authoritarian states that oppress their people and threaten others choose to tie themselves closer together. Whether it concerns Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, or any other dictatorship, I am pleased that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with the current majority, has a significantly tougher line against these than before. It is my firm conviction that we should not only cooperate more with like-minded states but also be clear when authoritarian states commit transgressions.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Björn Wiechel (S)

Madam Speaker! This debate is being conducted, as everyone has noted, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. That I, as a member of the Committee on Finance, have also signed up for the debate is because there is a specific statement in the report concerning Sweden's activities in the European Union, which a united opposition has stood behind. This specific statement concerns the fact that Sweden's government acts – or, if you will, does not act – in such a way that Sweden's finances are jeopardized and that the Riksdag's opportunity to conduct fiscal policy is diminished.

This special statement describes and criticizes poor political craftsmanship, a lack of government competence. Fundamentally, it is about the handling of Sweden's recovery plan. After the pandemic, a European recovery fund was established, from which all member countries would receive money if they met certain conditions. The previous Social Democratic government therefore submitted a plan, which was also approved, and the money was to be paid out.

Madam Speaker! When the SD government changed Sweden's fiscal policy after the change of government, and thus suddenly no longer meets the conditions, and has also not shown any alternative measures to meet the conditions, Sweden risks not receiving the money. For Sweden's part, it is about a total of 38 billion kronor. Furthermore, we have not seen a single penny. Soon we will be alone in the EU in not having received any money.

We from the Social Democrats and other parties have repeatedly raised the issue with the relevant ministers throughout the autumn, winter, and spring, but no reassuring answers have been given. The closest the government has come to any form of concretization of what the situation is for us to get the money is the Finance Minister's answer that it is not known.

Madam Speaker! It is remarkable. Therefore, we write the following in the special statement, which all four opposition parties stand behind: "Sweden's recovery fund covers 38 billion kronor. But due to the government's fiscal policy, it is unclear whether Sweden lives up to the commitments and efforts that form the basis for having the money paid out. The Committee on Finance has on several occasions requested that the government inform the committee about the matter. Likewise, the question has been raised in debates and interpellations. Despite this, the government has not given reassuring answers as to whether, when, or how much money Sweden is expected to receive or lose. The uncertainty regarding these billion-kronor amounts impairs the Committee on Finance's opportunities to plan and conduct economic policy."

Madam Speaker! Regarding the SD government's activities in the European Union, from the perspective of Swedish economic interests and the welfare of Swedish citizens, there is reason to be very critical from the Riksdag.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)